Op-Ed Contributor
Pay Only for Drugs That Help You
By SAMUEL D. WAKSAL
Published: March 6, 2012
IT’S hard not to be outraged by the fact that the United States spends $2.6 trillion per year on health care, far more than any other country, and has no better medical outcomes to show for it. Everyone agrees that we need to cut waste from the system. And it’s understandable that, with reports of individuals taking $100,000 cancer drugs only to prolong survival by a few months, the high cost of drugs is one of the first targets.But simply capping or slashing the price of drugs is not the answer. Individuals and insurance companies should be willing to pay — and pay a lot — for drugs when they work. The problem is we’re also paying for drugs when they don’t. To cut costs from the system and create an incentive for drug developers to deliver more innovative new drugs, this is what has to change.
All drugs have different effects on different people, particularly cancer drugs. There are many more genetic forms of cancer than simple categories like lung cancer or breast cancer denote. Drugs like Herceptin, Avastin and Erbitux (which my former company, ImClone Systems, developed) produce impressive results in patients whose cancers are genetically matched to their treatment — they can live years longer, returning to work and productive lives. But on a large group of patients, these drugs have no effect whatsoever. That’s why a drug’s “median overall survival benefit” — an average that is used to obtain Food and Drug Administration approval for cancer drugs, and a figure that critics of expensive drugs often point to — is actually very misleading.
Instead, we need to separate out those who benefit from a drug and those who don’t. When a drug works, patients and insurance companies should pay the full price. When it doesn’t, they should pay nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment